Expedient Unto Man: Mormon Moral Thinking

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

2 Nephi 2:27

A comment on Mormonism: Inside and Out, the collaborative blog between John Dehlin and Patrick Mason, reminded me of an experience I had in high school.

Throughout the scriptures, “expedient” is used to describe good, righteous, appropriate, moral things. Over at Mormonism: Inside and Out, commenter rah was contrasting a particular form of disaffection (involving a sense of betrayal over historical truth claims) with another form of disaffection (involving a more fundamental distrust over the moral claims of the church and its leaders) and wrote a comment that agreed with this basic understanding.

I think [church leaders] have not only sound reasons but a moral obligation to honestly deal with the possiblity [sic] of being mistaken when they are affecting the many thousands or millions by their teachings. For me this is about integrity, honestly and self examination – the core of living a moral life. Is it more *convenient* for them not to do this? Yes. I believe a core teaching of Mormonism is that convenience is not a barometer of doing what is right or being honest.

Emphasis added.

I don’t think this statement should be surprising. I think if you asked almost any member, they would agree that convenience is not a barometer of doing what is right or being honest.

An Inexpedient Truth

So, you could imagine my surprise when I was in 10th grade English class, taking one of the old SAT-style analogy vocab tests, and I missed a question on “expedient.” I don’t remember the exact question, but I do remember was that the analogy was looking for an antonym, and the correct antonym for “expedient” was “moral.”

After missing this question, I decided to do what I probably should have done in the first place, and I studied my vocabulary list. I went to the Dictionary. And there I found something I did not expect:

adjective

1. tending to promote some proposed or desired object; fit or suitable for the purpose; proper under the circumstances:

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.

Some things that are true are not very useful.

As with the question of convenience vs moral principle, I don’t think there would be any question if you asked Mormons about whether Mormonism is concerned with truth. Yet, here we have a quote from Packer that suggests that the pursuit for truth must take utility into consideration.

This explicitly pragmatic approach rankles disaffected Mormons, many of whom likely were not raised with the understanding that there needed to be a calculus between truthfulness and utility (or perhaps even that there could ever be conflict between honest disclosure and utility).

From the perspective of someone who believes that truth is valuable for its own sake, it seems extremely challenging to reconcile the idea that truth instead should be seen as instrumental to some other goal.

What does Mormonism really believe?

At the end of the day, I think that a lot of the profound miscommunication between disaffected Mormons and faithful Mormons (which comes out on blogs like Mormonism: Inside and Out) is due to a fundamental disconnect over what Mormonism fundamentally is, teaches, and believes about itself and the world. Notwithstanding the correlation process (or perhaps partially because of the correlation process), people raised in the church or who convert to the church develop an internal understanding about what Mormonism is, and if they find out that that internal understanding doesn’t match the external reality, that can call into question the foundation for their having dedicated time, energy, and effort into the church.

It seems, however, that it would be too easy, too cheap (and, therefore, too simple to account for complex reality?) to say that Mormons really are amoral, only following what is useful, practical, or expedient (in the sense of what is advantageous, as opposed to right). At the same time, the strength and scope of faith crises suggests that a simple view that Mormonism prioritizes truth and morality in a vacuum is also likely to be untenable.

Really, I think that if one really pays more attention, one will see that Mormonism does care about truth and morality, but that those claims have always been tied to practical concerns.

Let’s turn back to Boyd K. Packer’s Mantle.

Earlier, Packer states:

There is no such thing as a scholarly, objective study of the office of bishop without consideration of spiritual guidance, of discernment, and of revelation. That is not scholarship. Accordingly, I repeat, there is no such thing as an accurate or objective history of the Church which ignores the Spirit.

You might as well try to write the biography of Mendelssohn without hearing or mentioning his music, or write the life of Rembrandt without mentioning light or canvas or color.

To secular critics, this assertion is nonsense. From a secular perspective, not only would “objectivity” (especially in a scholastic sense) not require insider elements such as “spiritual guidance,” “discernment,” or “revelation,” but perhaps, it might sometimes preclude such things.

So, it makes sense that nonbelievers should find this to be a non-starter.

But what about Mormons?

I think that a cause for a lot of disaffection is that many Mormons come to believe that Mormonism should stand and fall on essentially secular grounds — that members (prospective or otherwise) can rate or judge the church’s truth claims (historical, moral, or otherwise) using the same tools as they would use for other secular pursuits, and that Mormonism stands or falls depending on its ability to meet those secular grounds.

So, from the realm of history, these Mormons expect that scriptural events stand or fall based on the extent that a disinterested archeologist could find the material implements of those scriptural events. From the realm of translation, these Mormons expect that a scriptural translation stands or falls based on the extent that a secular translator can verify the message and the translation.

From a realm of finances, these Mormons expect the sort of financial disclosures that we would expect of secular organizations, and we expect the church to cleanly steer clear of for-profit terminology (such as “corporation”) in a way that even our secular tax code distinctions does not require for churches. This of course, has implications outside of taxes and finances — on moral grounds, these Mormons expect the church to silo its moral beliefs regarding LGBT (or anything else) similar to what is expected generally in anti-discrimination statutes (that is…public accommodations should not discriminate, so to the extent a church wants to promulgate beliefs that are seen as discriminatory, they should not operate in the public.)

If you read those three paragraphs, you may see yourself in them, or you may recognize that as a belief of some members you know. But are those essentially Mormon beliefs?

Might it be that ultimately, Mormon moral thinking doesn’t concede ground for its own judgment to secular processes?

Rethinking Mormonism

Every so often, there are articles written scrutinizing LDS church finances (such as Bloomberg’s “How the Mormons Make Money“). While the article was criticized by many faithful LDS (see especially this Deseret News article) for its insensitivity, there were a quotation of D. Michael Quinn from even that article that made me think a little differently:

On the other hand, says historian D. Michael Quinn, who is working on a book about the LDS Church’s finances and businesses, “The Mormon Church is very different than any other church. … Traditional Christianity and Judaism make a clear distinction between what is spiritual and what is temporal, while Mormon theology specifically denies that there is such a distinction.” To Latter-day Saints, opening megamalls, operating a billion-dollar media and insurance conglomerate, and running a Polynesian theme park are all part of doing God’s work. Says Quinn: “In the Mormon [leadership’s] worldview, it’s as spiritual to give alms to the poor, as the old phrase goes in the Biblical sense, as it is to make a million dollars.”

“You must continue to bear in mind that the temporal and spiritual are blended. They are not separate. One cannot be carried on without the other, so long as we are here in mortality. …

“The Latter-day Saints believe not only in the gospel of spiritual salvation, but also in the gospel of temporal salvation. We have to look after the cattle, … the gardens and the farms, … and other necessary things for the maintenance of ourselves and our families in the earth. … We do not feel that it is possible for men to be really good and faithful Christian people unless they can also be good, faithful, honest and industrious people. Therefore, we preach the gospel of industry, the gospel of economy, the gospel of sobriety.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939, p. 208; emphasis added.)

This thinking should seem reasonable, especially if you know the church’s past history with near bankruptcy. Although this is written to address the financial point, this similar thinking can be used to better explain Mormon positions elsewhere. After the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination posted its Gender Identity Guidance, one of my faithful LDS Facebook friends, in commenting on the conflict between religious liberty and anti-discrimination statutes, made the following remark:

The law assumes that churches have two categories for what their church does:

1. Religious stuff

2. Non-religious stuff

I don’t really know of any seriously religious organization or individual who makes these kind of distinctions.

Let me tell you a little secret – It’s ALL religious.

While I believe there certainly should be protections for minorities at public accommodations and am perturbed that “religious liberty” seems to be the biggest avenue against LGBT folks these days, I would have to admit that there’s something to the idea that even something like a spaghetti dinner open to the public serves a religious cause for a church [hello…missionary work?]

Ultimately, it gets back to that concept of expedience. Although one definition (and the definition commonly used in today’s world…at least on the SAT) contrasts expediency with morality, there were still other definitions, like:

tending to promote some proposed or desired object; fit or suitable for the purpose; proper under the circumstances

This definition is neutral; it depends on what the proposed or desired object is, or what the purpose or circumstances are. For Mormonism, though, at least ostensibly, we know what the object, purpose, or circumstances are. Again, from the scriptures:

And Christ hath said: If ye will have faith in me ye shall have power to do whatsoever thing is expedient in me.

Moroni 7:33

Ultimately, I can’t decide for anyone whether Mormonism actually aligns with its goal to promote things that promote Christ, or aresuitable for the purpose of returning to Christ. But I hope that we can recognize when we are judging Mormonism according to a secular framework as opposed to a Mormon-internal framework.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by Andrew S.

A tax accounting graduate of Texas A&M. An epeeist. A cultural, nonbelieving Mormon. Some kind of existentialist or absurdist. A speaker and presenter and writer.
I am Andrew S.
View all posts by Andrew S.

27 thoughts on “Expedient Unto Man: Mormon Moral Thinking”

“the correct antonym for “expedient” was “moral.”” What the frak? I did not see that one coming. Mind blown. Excellent post, and lots to think about. I do actually somewhat agree with Packer’s statement (the much reviled one about not all truth being useful), but for me where the problems enter is that sometimes what is “advantageous” is merely advantageous to individuals and not to the kingdom of God in the long run or it preserves the status quo and is therefore seen as expedient (there’s a greater fear of decay and loss than enthusiasm for growth and progress) when it is actually not based in an accurate evaluation of the relative advantages of different positions.

Here are a few quick examples I thought of to illustrate your dichotomy between true and expedient (advantageous):
– It’s not true that the Word of Wisdom is an infallible or divine health code, but it’s expedient (advantageous) for members to follow it for a variety of reasons. (In group identification, avoiding excesses associated with alcoholism risks, and alcohol consumption is often roughly 10% of income which is a familiar number).
– It’s not true that marrying young will lead to more happiness for the individual, but it’s expedient (advantageous) to teach this so that young people don’t leave the church which will be a support to them in the long run and is also our imperative to grow as a church.
– It’s not true that being gay is a choice, but it’s expedient that we imply that it is so that we don’t have to revisit how they fit into the plan of salvation.

Lots to think about here. In a highly orthoprax religion like ours, what is pragmatic is always imperative.

That was also my reaction (and also to the Horace quotation from the featured image).

But I think you’re absolutely right that it matters what something is expedient or advantageous to. Whenever the scriptures use the term, it is always directed from God to humanity or from humanity to God. So, it’s God saying what is advantageous for humanity to reconcile with Him. As you highlighted with your post, however, there seems to increasingly be an idea that since the leaders receive revelation from God, then maybe whatever the leaders say is an appropriate substitute for what God wants?

The challenge is that…well…Mormonism is absolutely a religion that values hierarchy and institution. So, even if leaders aren’t infallible, even if there is personal revelation, and so on…one has to be very cautious when claiming that any given policy or statement of the leaders is not revelatory.

I think that progressive Mormons can and should continue to develop faithful Mormon internal critiques so they aren’t dismissed as just giving in to secular political beliefs.

I think utility is its own kind of truth. Utility is about the fruitfulness of a particular set of pentameters as they flow through time. Objective but non-useful truths may not actually have universal truth if, as perametrs flowing through time, they do not promote any kind of growth. Nature is selecting for those truths which have the power to replicate themselves, like genes, except they are called memes.

But what might seem non-useful to president Packer, might still be useful to the Lord, who works in mysterious ways.

Great thoughts. Thanks
I think honesty and truth are lower laws to integrity and, in this case expediency. I reminds me of that moral dilemma where you are asked by Nazi soldiers if there are Jews hiding in your attic. If you tell the truth you condemn the Jews to possible death. It is expedient in this case to lie and save your integrity and people’s lives. This is of course an extreme. However the principle is there.

Well this is interesting Andrew and before I begin to play devil’s advocate I’ll mention that you interested me to the point of head turning regarding a different view of Packer’s truth =/= useful comment.

But on balance I think this is mostly just a weak apologetic viewpoint because I think there are parallels that can be used for contrasting and comparing. For example regarding Mormonism standing and falling on essentially secular grounds when one applies the same test to Christianity one does find (at least partial) archeological evidence to support the Christian narrative. But your material financial argument is that the temporal and spiritual are *blended*! Well are there or aren’t they blended? Because it seems there is no temporal evidence for the BoM only (maybe) spiritual! So this blending only applies for the church’s finances and not for it’s narrative? Seems like pretty faulty logic to me. Perhaps your heading toward creating a logic free safe space for accepting the otherwise unbelievable? If so you might want to team up with Jeff G here.

Unfortunately if there ever was any altrusem in Packer’s Some things that are true are not very useful. in practice this standard very quickly devolves into lying of the Lord! So might say that Packer’s observation isn’t very useful. Shall we conclude that this result was an unwelcome and total surprise to Packer? If so why didn’t he take steps to change that outcome? I think a safer conclusion is that Packer was without altruism in creating this statement.

I think that your last line is really important. I think the one thing I would continue to stress is that there is a tension in Mormonism to defer to folks like Pres. Packer (and other general authorities) as being the human delegates for the Lord. Even if we accept that prophets and other GAs are NOT infallible, there is supposed to be a general trust of their pronunciations.

Dave oz,

I think that’s a good point. This is basically summarized in the great debate between consequentialism (ethics based on consequences) and deontology (ethics based on duty/obligation.) Those who would say it’s not OK to lie (even if you think the truth could pose worse consequences) are taking that second approach, whereas “expedience” definitely is more consequentialist.

There was a blog post at LDS Anarchist that argued that there in fact are not higher or lower laws; there are only expedient laws. I find that LDS Anarchist can sometimes be out there (and they definitely have some authors I can’t really go along with), but this post seemed pretty on point. The basic idea here is…the concept of “higher” or “lower” often comes with the idea that higher is better and lower is worse or lesser — but when we say laws are expedient, we can say that laws are always tailored to particular circumstances; they are always appropriate to the particular context, and thus they are good for their context.

HowardDirkson,

I think I’d comment with respect to something you said, that…

For example regarding Mormonism standing and falling on essentially secular grounds when one applies the same test to Christianity one does find (at least partial) archeological evidence to support the Christian narrative.

The important thing is that the truths of Christianity are not about archeological evidences. The fact that there are archeological evidences is great for traditional Christianity, but I think most thoughtful Christians are aware that matters of the supernatural are matters of faith precisely because they are outside the scientific realm. Like, think of the Catholic proposition of faith, “Mary was conceived Immaculate.” This is a truth held by Catholics that cannot be touched by science, because it’s not about science. So,

That being said…

But your material financial argument is that the temporal and spiritual are *blended*! Well are there or aren’t they blended? Because it seems there is no temporal evidence for the BoM only (maybe) spiritual! So this blending only applies for the church’s finances and not for it’s narrative?

I personally think that this is a great critique, but when the church talks about the spiritual and temporal (such as the 1981 General Conference talk “Principles of Temporal Salvation,” it is absolutely talking about the economic self-sufficiency of the Saints (whether as a church or as members). The temporal “truths” of the church are not archeological truths, but truth claims about better living on earth (e.g., living cleanly, living economically self-sufficient, etc.,) It’s far more about what members *do*. Far more pragmatic. So, “temporal” is not identical to “21st century secular empiricist”

Seems like pretty faulty logic to me. Perhaps your heading toward creating a logic free safe space for accepting the otherwise unbelievable? If so you might want to team up with Jeff G here.

I am flattered to be compared to Jeff G, and yes, I think this post was trying to go a bit in his sort of thinking (especially his thoughts on using an external secular framework to judge the church.) BUT I don’t think this is creating a “logic free space”…rather, it continues to establish how just because the logic of Mormonism is *different* than external secular perspectives doesn’t mean that it is necessarily flawed. (It could still be flawed, yes, but a lot of our disagreements aren’t about showing how the logic is flawed, but just about how we start with different premises and [predictably] come to different conclusions.)

Well if archeological evidences are great for traditional Christianity wouldn’t they also be great for Mormonism? Or by your view is the lack archeological evidences evidence that Mormonism is even greater? If so how? Or are you arguing that the lack archeological evidences is irrelevant? If so why would it be relevant to Christianity and not Mormonism?

To me there seems to be a lot magic in where to apply this “Mormon logic”, apply it here but not there or there but yes here in this case…

Sure Andrew one can have faith in a mirage if they choose but faith in archeological evidence is far more sound.

The problem with your presentation is that it’s based on series of apologies. Apologies are not based on logic they based on an assumption of being right and the evidence is selected, omitted and bent to fit. Individually they may sound good at first but when you string these apologetics together the “logic” of one when applied to others doesn’t work.

I would say people don’t have faith in archeology. Archeology is not the sort of thing religious faith is about. So really, the question is whether religious faith is worth having at all.

I think you misunderstand the relationship between apologetics and logic.

Logic is a neutral tool. It is a system of rules for moving from premises to conclusions. But logic does not tell you what premises you have to start with. It’s absolutely true that if you start from certain premises, that will change what conclusions you end up. It’s absolutely true that apologetics of any sort start with certain premises.

I’m not saying you have to accept certain premises. As a non-believer, I obviously do not accept theist, Christian, or Mormon premises.

But what I’m saying is don’t confuse your disagreement about what premises are logically *sound* for an argument about what inferences are logically *valid*.

It not just the starting premise of the issue being addressed by apologetics that creates a problem for apologetics Andrew, it’s the selective bending of evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion that does apologetics in!

I wouldn’t say that faith is self-evidently true. I think that faith is a lens with which to view the world, but it’s not self-evident if one should put on those glasses. That’s a choice people have to make (and the real question for Christians is whether people can freely make that choice [Arminianism] or whether God predetermines who will make that choice [Calvinism].)

But Andrew, you have been defending church claims not private individual beliefs. Are you saying that the church claims are true for those who believe them and false for those who don’t? What is the point of that kind of vote?

I’m saying that for people who have faith in the church, church claims are true for everyone. But for those who don’t, church claims are false for everyone.

Could either side be incorrect? Absolutely. But if the LDS Church is correct, it could be correct regardless of what external secular evidence says about it because it’s claims are about faith. (the church claims are about actions – experimenting on the word, planting the seed of the word, praying for confirmation, enduring to the end, etc., These actions are lived.

As long as people agree that much of the disagreement in worldviews is precisely that – a disagreement in worldviews, then I think this post has accomplished what it sought to. It’s not a new idea at all, but people don’t seem to take it into consideration

Andrew, you’ve written far, far better than this. Honestly I thought you had something to say. What did it turn out to be? For people who have faith in the church, church claims are true for everyone. But for those who don’t, church claims are false for everyone. This is news? Really?

Given how many people unironically say things like “the church is a fraud” or “the church has no evidence” or “apologetics is illogical”, I would say that yes, this apparently is news. If people actually understand that most of their disagreements with the church are really about choosing a different worldview, then we would see far more nuanced critiques. But we mostly don’t.